pbi_compare_live_to_pbip

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses specific behaviors: listing tables and measures only on one side and measures with differing DAX, which gives concrete expectations beyond just 'compare'. It does not mention side effects, but as a comparison operation, none are implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the use case and specific elements compared. No unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral detail, which is fully sufficient for a zero-parameter comparison tool. It is contextually complete for the agent to select and invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is complete by default. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds meaning about what the tool operates on (live model vs TMDL), which is helpful even without parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares the live model with the TMDL on disk using the specific verb 'Compara' and naming both resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validation or documentation tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says it is useful for detecting unsaved in-memory changes, providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.